US Politics - 51 threads to the election!

[Shryke]

1)Getting rid of the FED will solve a lot of our problems, but I would settle for currencies to compete with it. Though there is absolutely now proof that competing currencies. That is a completely false. We have International currencies now.

2). FRB is a tool that allows banks to loan more money than it has. It inflates the money behind the availble resources which in turn increases the prices of the already available resources. FRB is the greatest virus, but under a free market system it CAN exist (but it wont last long).

3). Regulation's end up benefiting those being regulated (see the financial meltdown that just happens). Let me ask you a question. Dont you find it strange that it's the big corporations that are pushing for more regulations?

1) What problems would getting rid of the Fed solve?

And yes we have multiple currencies internationally and international currencies cause drag on international economics. What do you think was one of the main reasons for the eurozone? No need to switch currencies makes international markets more efficient.

2) You do understand how fiat currency works right? "Inflates the money behind the availble resources" doesn't even make sense. Do you understand the huge economic drag full-reserve banking creates? You are basically removing HUGE amounts of money from the economy by forcing banks to sit on it doing nothing with it.

3) How did regulation benefit the financial market? Other then in places like, say, Canada where regulations benefited them by keeping them from making stupid decisions. And big corporations aren't pushing for more regulation. They are trying to gut the EPA and financial regulation. And often succeeding (see - Glass-Steagall) and hey, look how that turned out.

Do you even live in reality? Do you think you actually understand what you are talking about?

Contracts are in essence voluntary, and government was not always the arbiter.

And contracts were violated when it suited people before then too. Enforcement of contracts is, in fact, a huge necessity for a free market.

free market

n

(Economics)

a.

an economic system that allows supply and demand to regulate prices, wages, etc., rather than government policy

Regulating the money supply doesn't stop this.

[Shryke]

Anyone-But-Romney is the funniest thing:

Representatives for leading social conservative groups in Iowa held a secret meeting Monday as part of an effort with one main goal: find and support a Republican presidential candidate who can stop Mitt Romney in Iowa.

The idea: avoid splintering the conservative vote in the state by rallying around one GOP rival who could win Iowa's Jan. 3 caucus and then challenge Romney in New Hampshire and the other early voting states.

Many social conservatives and other religious leaders in the state have openly labeled the former Massachusetts governor as a "flip-flopper," a criticism the campaign frequently beats back, while others have seen Romney's Mormon faith as an issue. And many of them have openly hoped for someone to emerge as a viable alternative to the former Massachusetts governor.

http://edition.cnn.c....html?hpt=hp_t2

[mcbigski]

Let's play Name that Party!

http://www.walb.com/...for-voter-fraud

(And yet everytime photo ID requirements are raised around here, it's instantly dismissed a pretext for accusing Republicans of suppressing legitimate voters.) :rolleyes:

[SpicyTurkey]

Because otherwise the financial system would collapse. Hint: that's bad

Now, why don't you actually answer the question. Because "Why were they bailed out?" is not at all related to the issue in question.

It's exactly related to the question. They knew they were going to be bailed, because they knew it was going to be "bad" too.

1) What problems would getting rid of the Fed solve?

And yes we have multiple currencies internationally and international currencies cause drag on international economics. What do you think was one of the main reasons for the eurozone? No need to switch currencies makes international markets more efficient.

1). It would get rid of their inflationary mechanisms. Though in the free markets the FED would still be allowed to exist. If it continues with its horrible policies, then competition will drive it out.

The eurozone is a great example, and look how that turned out. The last sentence is completely false, and can you please prove how it would make it efficient. If one currencies is as efficient as you say, then the free markets will head that way.

2) You do understand how fiat currency works right? "Inflates the money behind the availble resources" doesn't even make sense. Do you understand the huge economic drag full-reserve banking creates? You are basically removing HUGE amounts of money from the economy by forcing banks to sit on it doing nothing with it.

I mean "beyond" the available resources. Real economic growth does not come from the creation of money, it comes from production. Money just helps facilitate goods and services.

3) How did regulation benefit the financial market? Other then in places like, say, Canada where regulations benefited them by keeping them from making stupid decisions. And big corporations aren't pushing for more regulation. They are trying to gut the EPA and financial regulation. And often succeeding (see - Glass-Steagall) and hey, look how that turned out.

Here is a great article that talks about regulation and big business. http://mises.org/daily/475

Do you even live in reality? Do you think you actually understand what you are talking about?

I can ask you the same thing.

And contracts were violated when it suited people before then too. Enforcement of contracts is, in fact, a huge necessity for a free market.

I agree with this.

Regulating the money supply doesn't stop this.

Yes it does. Money is considered a commodity. Controlling the life blood of the market is controlling the market.

[Shryke]

Let's play Name that Party!

http://www.walb.com/...for-voter-fraud

(And yet everytime photo ID requirements are raised around here, it's instantly dismissed a pretext for accusing Republicans of suppressing legitimate voters.) :rolleyes:

Uh, you realise this is about absentee voting (thus rendering your comments about voter ID meaningless) and is based on help from the people running the election, right?

Like, nothing about this case has anything to do with photo ID requirements. Do you even read your links?

[SpicyTurkey]

Because otherwise the financial system would collapse. Hint: that's bad

What makes you think they didn't know that?

[Shryke]

It's exactly related to the question. They knew they were going to be bailed, because they knew it was going to be "bad" too.

According to what? See, we are back to the first question again.

Shit, look at Lehman Brothers. They didn't get bailed out.

These people made risky moves because they made money.

1). It would get rid of their inflationary mechanisms. Though in the free markets the FED would still be allowed to exist. If it continues with its horrible policies, then competition will drive it out.

"inflationary mechanisms"??? WTF? You do know that inflation occurs without the existence of a central bank, right?

The eurozone is a great example, and look how that turned out. The last sentence is completely false, and can you please prove how it would make it efficient. If one currencies is as efficient as you say, then the free markets will head that way.

What does the collapse of the eurozone have to do with a lack of multiple currencies? The issues are mostly related to a lack of integrated fiscal policy and the ECB/Germany's unwillingness to backstop the Eurozone's debt or accept higher inflation.

Switching currencies is inefficient and you can't say "if it was more efficient, the free market would do it" since that's you basically assuming your own argument as an axiom.

I mean "beyond" the available resources. Real economic growth does not come from the creation of money, it comes from production. Money just helps facilitate goods and services.

This makes no sense and again highlights that you don't know what's going on here. Real economic growth comes from money because money buys real things. I build a factory with money, I make things, the economy grows. And I do that because the bank lent me money.

Here is a great article that talks about regulation and big business. http://mises.org/daily/475

First of all, an Austrian-economics think tank? Pfft :lol:

Secondly, you just avoided argument here. Are businesses trying to end EPA regulation, yes or no? (Yes, because those regulations costs them money) Was the financial sector instrumental in deregulating financial markets? (Yes it was so they could make more money) Regulations impact business negatively all the time (that's often the point after all, to make them pay for externalities they wouldn't otherwise) and they fight vigorously against them. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Yes it does. Money is considered a commodity. Controlling the life blood of the market is controlling the market.

How? You keep saying it does, but you are utterly unable to show how this works.

Your definition says: "an economic system that allows supply and demand to regulate prices, wages, etc., rather than government policy"

Controlling the money supply doesn't stop this from happening. (things like minimum wage laws do for labour, but that's not the Fed)

[mcbigski]

Uh, you realise this is about absentee voting (thus rendering your comments about voter ID meaningless) and is based on help from the people running the election, right?

Like, nothing about this case has anything to do with photo ID requirements. Do you even read your links?

Shryke, I'll grant you that I'm somewhat sloppy tonight (Knob Creek FTW!!), but whether we're talking about absentee ballots, photo ID requirements or SEIU members voting for the residents of nursing homes, you've been consistently on the side of claiming that it's all just right wing talking points designed to disenfranchise, and that anything raised in objection is just anecdotal.

My primary point was the media bias. Systemic electoral fraud and how clear was it from the direct text what party?

[Shryke]

Shryke, I'll grant you that I'm somewhat sloppy tonight (Knob Creek FTW!!), but whether we're talking about absentee ballots, photo ID requirements or SEIU members voting for the residents of nursing homes, you've been consistently on the side of claiming that it's all just right wing talking points designed to disenfranchise, and that anything raised in objection is just anecdotal.

My primary point was the media bias. Systemic electoral fraud and how clear was it from the direct text what party?

It's electoral fraud with absentee ballots. Something we actually talked about recently and is actually an issue in some cases.

It still has nothing to do with poll-place electoral fraud or voter IDs, which completely neuters your attempt at a point. You've not shown in any way why photo ID to vote is necessary or any of the voter fraud it would be preventing.

[ants]

The banking industry is deadly afraid of the free markets, because it would have let them fail. Though the current system wont let them fail, because according to those in charge it would be a "disaster". That is exactly what they expected regardless if the government explicitly told them that they would be bailed out.

Before you can understand the problem you have to understand how bubbles are formed. Though you seem to think that the regulations already there are not enough, and that more will solve all our problems.

That doesn't make any since. It reminds me of what Ludwig Von Mises said:

............

So, I ask you a question. You ignore it (again) and simply claim the banks are scared of the free market. You then claim I don't understand how bubbles are formed, and quote a piece that doesn't even refer to that simply saying companies in industries that lobby well can improve their performance. Well duh. What you seemed to have ignored is that on bubbles they were worse AND more frequent before strong regulation came in and on the above lobbying that it still affects all players in the market equally.

I'm giving up. Shryke and I keep answering questions, and then posing them to you. And you respond with platitudes. We put up examples, talk about the history, you keep putting up platitudes. Unless you want to provide some real arguments and examples beyond "I don't like it, I believe this, so its true", I'm going to leave you alone in your little world.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

I didn't get into this thread early enough to respond to this when it was timely, but I couldn't stop myself... SpicyTurkey, did you seriously claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was illegal or something? In addition to being apparently a libertarian are you an income tax denier?

If so we can have a fun conversation.

Edit - it might have been in the Europe thread.

[DanteGabriel]

Shryke, I'll grant you that I'm somewhat sloppy tonight (Knob Creek FTW!!), but whether we're talking about absentee ballots, photo ID requirements or SEIU members voting for the residents of nursing homes, you've been consistently on the side of claiming that it's all just right wing talking points designed to disenfranchise, and that anything raised in objection is just anecdotal.

My primary point was the media bias. Systemic electoral fraud and how clear was it from the direct text what party?

Here's a counter-example to your gibbering hackery, a Republican trying to flog the vote fraud horse and getting shit for results.

http://tpmmuckraker....she_alleged.php

New Mexico's Republican Secretary of State said her state had a "culture of corruption" and referred 64,000 voter registration records to the police that she thought could be fraudulent. A full investigation turned up... 19 cases of people that cast ballots that they shouldn't have.

No matter, I'm sure those 19 cases will be enough justification for the shitheels of the GOP to try and disenfranchise a few thousand poor and minority voters.

Seriously. You are going on about vote fraud and you're still shitting yourself over "media bias" because an article from a local news affiliate in southern Georgia failed to name the parties of state government employees who have been indicted? This is what you crawled out of your hole for? Pick better battles to carry the Republican Hack banner into.

[lokisnow]

Are we going to war with Pakistan?

[Shryke]

Are we going to war with Pakistan?

I'm going with "No" unless there's something going on right now I haven't heard about.

[Rane]

I'm going with "No" unless there's something going on right now I haven't heard about.

Something like this?

[Shryke]

Something like this?

Nah. Either full of shit or another US incursion into Pakistan going after something or other.

[Horza]

Are we going to war with Pakistan?

'Going to?'

We've been at war with a significant portion of Pakistan's military-intelligence complex for about five years.

[Horza]

Bombs, terrorist proxies and a longstanding policy of poking another nuclear power in the eye with the latter to keep the public from wondering why the people who lost four wars to said power should be running the show. And all the while taking billions in US aid while aforesaid military-intelligence factions shelter and aid the Taliban. What an ally.

[Atreides]

It's easy to understand why some conservatives feel that liberals disregard the Constitution. After all, it's a complex and difficult document, and therefore surely only the party that waves it in everyone's face has read it and abides by it. But alas, even Fox invents parts of the Constitution. Yes its from Daily Kos. And yes, I'll remove the link if anyone provides proof that its a photoshop as opposed to picture of an actual Fox News broadcast. But if Barack Obama can be held accountable for slipping up on the number of states while giving a speech on the fly, then surely Fox can be held accountable to not doing their research when they probably have numerous computers and smartphones handy with internet access so they can do their basic constitutional sourcing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It's easy to understand why some conservatives feel that liberals disregard the Constitution. After all, it's a complex and difficult document, and therefore surely only the party that waves it in everyone's face has read it and abides by it. But alas, even Fox invents parts of the Constitution. Yes its from Daily Kos. And yes, I'll remove the link if anyone provides proof that its a photoshop as opposed to picture of an actual Fox News broadcast. But if Barack Obama can be held accountable for slipping up on the number of states while giving a speech on the fly, then surely Fox can be held accountable to not doing their research when they probably have numerous computers and smartphones handy with internet access so they can do their basic constitutional sourcing.

Someone made an error in coverting an abbreviation. The original citation likely was 28 U.S.C. Section 144, where "U.S.C." stands for United States Code, and someone put up the word "Constitution" instead of "Code". Embarassing, but hardly a big deal.